Talk:Invasion of Poland/Archive 1

Blitzkrieg Tactics

The September campaign was not the first use of blitzkrieg tactics... it was the Spanish Civil War.

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0861253.html

I'd make the edits myself, but I'm not sure how to post the relevant reference. Vaxalon 13:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Others argue that the German invasion of France was the first use of blitzkrieg... 119 17:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

What it probably comes down to9]] one of two criteria. 1> Where the tactics were actually used for the first time 2> Where the tactics acquired the name. By the first criteria, Spanish Civil War probably has it, by the second, probably September Campaign. If you define the tactics as being used BROADLY, across the front, rather than here and there, then the invasion of the low countries would be the answer. Vaxalon 16:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You may want to ask about this at Talk:Blitzkrieg. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

From the Blitzkrieg article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#Spanish_Civil_War

According to that article, blitzkrieg was *partially* tested during the Spanish Civil War... moreso air power than armor.Vaxalon 19:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There is now a growing conviction among military historians that the September Campaign was not a Blitzkrieg campaign. There were no decisive deep strategic penetrations. Even the simplified and deceptive description of Blitzkrieg tactics in the article as a breakthrough by tanks leaving encircled enemy units to be mopped up by the infantry is only with great difficulty applicable to the events of September 1939, unless the concept loses every distinction and even 15 September 1916 becomes a Blitzkrieg event. The claim that the campaign was planned as such, by Halder no less, is simply ludricous. Blitzkrieg was not the official doctrine of the German army until after Fall Gelb. Nor was it ever practised on Spanish soil. The September Campaign can best be typified as a classical Kesselschlacht, with geography already providing the cauldron, mostly executed by direct frontal annihilation--MWAK 14:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. If you can provide sources for this, we can definetly include this in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, AFAIC, the Germans tried the Blitzkrieg in Poland. The reason they did not succeed entirely with preparing a handbook-like example of this tactics was the resistance by the Polish Army. However, all other prerequisites were there: terror bombing, panzer pincers from Pomerania to Prussia, from there to Lwów and from Silesia towards Warsaw and Romanian bridgehead - and so on. The only problem was that the Germans did not succeed neither in destruction of the Polish airforce on the airfields nor in surrounding most of the units near the borders. Halibutt 20:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The book that has done most (but still not enough :o) in exposing the Myth of Blitzkrieg in general, Frieser's Blitzkrieg-Legende put it this way on page 22:

Es erscheint bemerkenswert, daß in den letzten Jahren der Polenfeldzug immer häufiger nicht als >>echter<< Blitzkrieg bewertet wird.. ["Its seems remarkable that in recent years the Polish Campaign ever more often isn't judged to be a real Blitzkrieg"]

and then refers to Cooper's German Army and Strachan's European Armies and even to Deighton's Blitzkrieg (though I wouldn't suggest taking the latter book seriously). So what's not real about it? It was mechanised manoeuvre warfare wasn't it? It was — and if you define it as such the September Campaign certainly was a good example of Blitzkrieg. But under that definition all armies had Blitzkrieg as their official doctrine: they all wanted to move their tanks during an offensive. And then we don't need such a fancy word either. That word was however invented to indicate something very fancy indeed: the Strategischer Überfall or shock and awe as we today would call it. Now while the terror bombardments of Warsaw in that sense certainly present a Blitzkrieg aspect, the campaign as a whole surely wasn't based on such a "strategic assault". But perhaps we would like to use the word in a later derived sense: bringing about the operational collapse of the enemy by means of deep strategic penetrations by armoured forces, just like what happened in France or the Soviet-Union. Panzer pincers. Were there any? Well, just one single "pincer", when Guderian made his incursion towards Brest. But the German plan wasn't based on that. Look at the map and search for the phase line of day five. Where are the penetrations? They are absent. There was no need for a "breakthrough of the continuous front", for the Polish Army hadn't such a front to begin with. Should they have desired so, the Germans could have penetrated as deeply and quickly as their logistical capabilities allowed. But they didn't concentrate half a dozen Panzerdivisionen in Silesia and the other half (well, five including Kampfgruppe Kempf ;o) in East-Prussia to execute a pincermovement over the full strategic depth of the country, meeting in Brest. No, they squashed the Polish Army in an annihilation battle, using East-Prussia as the anvil and the main force from Silesia as the hammer, methodically marching on at 15 miles a day in close cooperation, the armour accompanying the infantry, pushing the enemy forward on a broad front. And they they did so in perfect accordance with the handbook, for that book didn't include a single reference to any Blitzkrieg tactics of the fancy kind whatsoever.

--MWAK 15:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Not right sir. The Siege of Warsaw ilustrates that pretty well: the first armoured units arrived to the city gates on September 8, while the infantry arrived on September 16, more than a week later. Also, the "annihilation battle" as you call it never actually happened, as the Polish units simply withdrew from the borders after loosing the fight for the frontiers. As to the units that were actually surrounded and annihilated - most of these were simply second-line troops that were still not fully mobilized and were overrun by the Germans. The rest withdrew and many of them retained their value well after the Soviets joined the fight... Halibutt 15:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a certain contradiction in your statements? If German armour was racing forward shouldn't it have been able to destroy defeated forces falling back on foot? And have reached Warsaw on the 4th? You first impute all kinds of intentions to the Germans (nowhere to be found in their battle plans, I might add) and then stand surprised at their failure. But it wasn't a failed Blitzkrieg — it wasn't even an attempted one! In fact infantry was progressing closely behind the armour screen (as the Siege of Warsaw article correctly mentions) and only failed to build up enough force earlier due to the Bzura counteroffensive. Obviously infantry units always get behind the motorised forces, whatever the supreme command intends. Of course you might construe the failed armour assault on the 8th as typical Blitzkrieg, but then you might call it classical frontal annihilation tactics too — isn't Blitzkrieg supposed to avoid fortified positions? I fear I myself have failed to make my point sufficiently clear: my claim is not so much that the Germans succeeded in annihilating the Polish Army but that it was their operational plan to do so. And they were ready and prepared to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their soldiers to achieve their goal. And, yes, had the Polish army been fully mobilised and fortified it might conceivably have succeeded in resisting the attempt. But merely withdrawing had led them nowhere except into the vise or into exile.--MWAK 20:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any contradiction. The motorized units indeed took advantage of the gaps in the Polish lines, which however did not destroy the Polish units by itself. The battle of Tuchola Forest in Pomerania is a good example: the Panzer divisions crushed the Pomeranian Army and split it in two parts. Poles indeed suffered heavy losses, but the army, and especially the larger southern part of it, remained in a relatively good shape and took part in the battle of Bzura - which ended almost three weeks later.

As to the case of Warsaw - indeed, the motorized infantry was fast enough to follow the tanks. However, your statement that they could not provide enough forces for an assault on Warsaw because of the battle of Bzura is not entirely right. Indeed, they had to divert some of their forces to Bzura, but the units to reach Warsaw were those from northern Silesia and from East Prussia, not the ones from the northern sector of the fron which fought in the area of the Bzura river.

Anyway, if the handbook-like examle of the Blitzkrieg would be panzer pincers and close air support, then the attempt was there. The only thing lacking in Poland was a success, as the Germans had to resort to slow (well, relatively) and painful step-by-step tactics with frontal assaults and so on. The plans however seem perfectly Blitzkrieg-ish to me. Halibutt 15:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the typical professional notion of Blitzkrieg would be: deep strategic penetration as the main instrument to bring about operational collapse. Close air support can of course complement a wide variety of tactics. Whether "panzer pincers" could count as "deep strategic penetration" depends on their actual organisation and operational planning. Only if complete strategic dephasing with the mass of the infantry units is allowed, one of the requirements of Blitzkrieg is fulfilled. But that still leaves the other one, that such a penetration should in the operational planning be considered decisive. But nothing corresponding to the two criteria is present in the German war plans. And this is not surprising as German doctrine was rather traditional and very Infantry-centred. If not a single tank or plane had been present in the German forces, the plans would have been quite similar — and the outcome too. The German victory was not dependent on all that fancy modern stuff, just on excellent infantry training and having 300 trucks for each infantry division. But it is tempting to draw impressive arrows on the map and exclaim: "Yes, Blitzkrieg! There it is!" ;o).--MWAK 07:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Myths

Do we know that Polish cavalry never charged tanks? Heinz Guderian clearly states they did, in his memoirs..

It is a myth. It's based on Polish lancers attacking German infantry, then were counter attacked by armor and cut down as they tried to retreat.

Yup, it is a myth. Guderian is referencing to the chaos resulting after Polish unit of Pomorska brigade faced German infantry. They charged, wiped out infantry and found itself udner fire of armoured cars. This resulted in panic in German army (And Guderian is refrencing to this - he does not wrote it happened, he wrote IIRC that his soldiers were affraid of it) and total loss of morale in Polish units (losses were maybe as much as 20% in just few minutes).Szopen 17:06, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

And it's a quite funny history of misunderstanding and using false sources for refreshing ones' memory: Guderian was writing his memoirs quite a long time after 1939 and apparently used an article by two Italian war correspondents who were brought there the following day. After seing corpses of Polish soldiers and their horses and a German armoured transporters column, they wrote about those romantic Poles. Guderian used this as a sorce, then Andrzej Wajda created his 'Lotna' and thus the myth was created... Long afterwards the communist propaganda was more than happy to use this symbol as a clear proof that the 'Noblety did not prepare Poland for war and paid with soldiers' blood while escaping to Romania'... [1], [2]. Halibutt 04:57, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

A search on Google for "last cavalry charge" returns an interesting page here [3] as the first hit, with information about a cavalry charge in the Ukraine in 1943 involving Cossacks. Patrick Wright's frustrating, fascinating, irritating 2003 book "Tank" [4] repeats the 'outdated Polish lancers vs tanks' myth verbatim, and the author even claims to have seen a photograph of a lancer charging a tank (a photograph he furthermore claims to be 'famous'). It seemed very dubious as I read it on a train, and I suspect he was making it up. As I understand it, horses were commonly used to transport soldiers to and from battles, but not for actual cavalry charges, even up to the 1980s in places such as Afghanistan; every so often on one of the 'alt.history.military' newsgroups somebody wonders aloud as to when the last cavalry charge took place.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not a myth, read colonel Hans von Luck's war memoirs entitled Panzer Commander. he was the leader of a reconneisance platoon during the Polish September Campaign, leading APCs into a small Polish town they were accidentally charged by Polish cavalry that had gotten lost in the confusing battlefield. Just because many books retell stories falsely doesn't mean that it didnt actually happen once, it means many people have heard it "through the grapevine"Jadger 21:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Goal

Eventually I'd like this page to be a Featured Article. We managed to do it to Warsaw Uprising, we can do it here. But that day is yet far to come. For now I am slowly gathering information which eventually should be spread over several subsections, each having its own expanding article. The tables and numbers that take most of the article at present would also be moved from the main body. Feel free to help :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At your service, sire! As with the Warsaw Uprising series, we could split it onto several sub-pages:

• Main article (short description, navbox and battlebox)
• Opposing forces (OOBs of Poland, Germany, USSR and Slovakia)
• Preparations (political situation before the outbreak of war, alliances, diplomatic relations, German provocations and propaganda)
• Hostilities (description of the main phases of the Defense War: Battle for the Frontiers, Withdrawal, Counterattack, Isolated strongholds and Romanian Bridgehead, Soviet invasion, Aftermath)
• Day-by-day description (the last to be written)
• Links, book references, quotations, stuff

What do you say? I could start working on any of the abovementioned right away, although we're not in a hurry this time. It's more than a year until the next September 1 anniversary... As always, the most difficult part would be gathering PD pictures, although there should be lots of free use ones and now I have a digital camera to work with... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:23, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

As always, you have great ideas. Agreed with all except one thing: as for day-to-day I'd like to point out we didn't do it in the Warsaw Uprisng in the end (not for every day, at least). I think the chronological description in the Hostiltities section will be enough for a good article. Of course I wouldn't dream of discouraging anybody who would attempt such a project, but personally I think it would be more useful to put that time into another article - there are a lot of those on Wiki that need our help. I mean, a good day-to-day good description would be a very very very time consuming project, and perhaps even not suited as much for Wiki as for an off-site theme page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought more of a shorter day-to-day desc., something similar to the Spanish Civil War. Preparing an extremely detailed calender would make little sense since it would be interesting for nerds only and we have better sources anyway.. Anyway, the project would be the last to start (if ever). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 04:41, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Category

From the History of the article: History: 15:49, 20 Sep 2004 Philip Baird Shearer m (Category:World War II European eastern front).

History 03:00, 21 Sep 2004 Halibutt m (rv category change. The Eastern Front article states clearly that the Eastern front was where the Russians fought from 1941 onwards. Polish Defence War ended 2 years before.)

If one thinks about the situation in 1939 there were two fronts. The Western Front between France, Belgium (Holland?) and Germany and the Eastern Front between Germany and Poland. If the Allies had been victorious in 1939 then it would be described as the Western and Eastern front (the soviets would not have been in WWII). Just because the Allies lost does not mean that this article should not be in the category of the Eastern Front in the European Theatre of WWII.

It you argue that the Polish September Campaign is not on the Eastern Front then the battle of France in 1940 is not a battle on the Western Front. But it is just as much a battle on the Western front as those of 1944Philip Baird Shearer 12:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the Allies were victorious then the Polish Defence War would be probably referred to as the Eastern Front. However, the Allies were not victorious and I've never seen a mention of the war in Poland as taking place on the eastern front. Usually it is called the Polish Front just, to distinguish it from the Eastern Front and Eastern Front (WWII). Unless those articles mention anything about the operations prior to 1941 I'd suggest we sticked to WWII operations. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Halibutt. When I hear 'eastern front', I think of 41 and Barbarossa. Of course, this is just my subiective opionion, and if sb can prove (provide off-Wiki sources) that the September Campaign is referred to as the first operation of the Eastern Front, I will be convinced. Note that the same argument goes for underground in Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As per Philip Baird Shearer proposal this discussion is continued at Category talk:World War II campaigns and theatres [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:50, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

FA

Another article that can be FA soon, with a little effort, I believe. Major battles need to be merged with the Campaign Details. We need to expand on stuff like general tactics and strategy used by Poland and Germany, make sure all important things are in place, and that's all. Could use more references as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

119 changes

I brought back some material deleted by User:119, who claimed 'severe POV', without citing any sources of references of his own. Changes: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• brought back newer PZL P.24 were used solely for export and PZL P.50s, which were supposed to have better parameters then German modern fighters, were still on the drawing board --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This is of low importance when the fighters did not participate in the Polish campaign, and certainly biased when one is not also attempting to explain that Germany and Russia's air forces had this or that shortcoming; the Equipment section was often a description of Polish equipment that the author feels would have been very useful if they had ever been used. This was/is not appropriate to a historical account unless presented in a very different manner. 119 13:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Eventually this would likely be moved to a separate article like Polish army equipment in the September Campaign, but atm the article is still not long enough to merit creating subarticles. I am not knowledgable about German or Russian airforce shortcomings and I am not writing about them, but I know about PAF shortcomings and see no reason why this should not be mentioned in the article. The planes/planes existed. They would be useful. The reasons they were not are not my imagination, they are facts. Encyclopedia is based on facts. I see no problem with that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Please keep in mind that as this is an article on the Polish September Campaign, the fact that the fighters did not participate in the Polish campaign makes them relevant only if there was some decision made during the course of the campaign with the belief that these aircraft would participate. There is relevant and irrelevant information, and as it is, this is irreelvant to the Polish campaign. This argument applies to the below sections as well, where you outrageously accuse me of vandalism and POV pushing--this, for doing the NPOV work on your text you obstensibly welcome, while challenging my changes to your text without a single hard assertion of your own other than what amounts to 'it's a start on something, anything'. 23:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • It is relevant to explain to a reader that the Polish armanent program was behind German and that the army was supposed to receive modern equipment after 42. The fact that it didn't have it in 39 and Poland army was outgunned contributed to the outcame of the campaign, thus explaining why it was so looks relevant to me. As the below sections about Los bomber and anti-tank carabine concern equipment that was used, it looks to me like you haven't read the article carefully. I don't accuse you of POV pushing, sine I from your deletions I can hardly see any POV of yours. However deletion of useful info *is* vandalism. Please contribute new facts or give sources proving my facts wrong and then remove them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:57, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• reworded the following sentence to make it more NPOV: The exact numbers are not fully verified, but it appears that at least one German plane shot down for each P.11 lost (a figure of 141 German planes is often given as compared with 118 planes lost). into The exact numbers are not verified, but some sources claim that at least one German plane shot down for each P.11 lost (a figure of 141 German planes is often given as compared with 118 planes lost). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• brought back the entire paragraph: One of the most interesting units in the Polish aresnal was the twin-engine medium bomber, the PZL.37 Łoś. Before the war it was one of the world's most modern and outstanding bombers. Smaller than most contemporary medium bombers, it was still able to carry a heavier bomb load than comparable aircraft, including the famous Vickers Wellington. It was relatively fast and easy to handle. Thanks to a landing gear with double wheels, it could operate from rough fields or meadows. The only drawback was its relatively weak defensive armament, consisting of 3 machine guns. Its range was also limited, but the Łoś was not meant to be a long range bomber. During the September Campaign, they were too few in number to change the outcome, and often lacking fighter cover, sustained heavy losses. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This is of no importance to the article as currently written. It's a mere technical description and offers no information on the use of this aircraft or its importance to the Polish campaign. It is trivia. 13:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • So what's wrong with a technical desription? When the article is too long, it will be moved off. Deleting it is vandalism. And it does offer information on usage on tactics of the plane (it could operate from rough fields or meadows, they were too few in number to change the outcome, and often lacking fighter cover, sustained heavy losses.) Granted this is too short - but by no means too long. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• brought back another entire paragraph: Finally, another interesting equipment used with success by Polish forces was the 7.92 mm Rifle Anti-Tank Mascerzek anti-tank rifle. It was quite successful against German light tanks, although - again - it was not produced in sufficent numbers by 1939. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I think there's bias in the entire article in that this was to be the Polish Defense War of 1939 on WP despite that not being the dominant English name, and this being edited prominently by people part of the Polish history WikiProject. This bit on AT rifles is trying to reduce the constant use of If these had been used, they would have... and If these had been available in sufficient quantity, they would have. 119 13:43, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I had slightly reworded the AT rifles part. The conclusions you draw are your own, the paragraph merely states that such an interesting piece of equipment existed, had such and such capabilities but was not wildly used. I'd love to see many other ppl join the work on this article and add more NPOV when necessary. Add facts, don't remove them, and change the wording if you think it is POVed. Expanding the article is always good. Deleting parts of it is almost always bordering on vandalism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Way too much ego here by all sides. Deleting without explanation or discussion when disputed is wrong, but so is inclusion of facts because one finds them "interesting". Facts have to relate to the topic at hyand or they are clutter. If one's ego and desire to "share" one's self-described wealth of knowledge gets in the way, the project goes down.--Buckboard 11:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Modification

I changed "the most powerful resistance movement in occupied Europe" or something along those lines to "a resistance movement." We're not supposed to be making judgments here, just providing information, and anyway the resistance movement in occupied Yugoslavia was arguably more effective (largely because of mountainous terrain).

I changed it to 'powerful'. You are right it is hard to argue which was *the* most powerful. I'd say Poles were better organised, but Yugoslavian partisans did manage to fend liberate more territories by themeslves (although difficult terrain and smaller strategic importance did play an important role in this). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Numbers, numbers

Can anybody give references for at least *some* of thsoe numbers? There are rather large discrepancies, of several hundred percent in case of artillery pieces, for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I decided to use numbers from Polish PWN encyclopedia. They seem more detailed then Britannica, and at least we can easily point out to the main source for numbers of our article. Of course, if you know a better source, do tell. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

old History of Poland (1939-1945), unsourced	old Polish September Campaign, unsourced infobox	old Polish September Campaign body details, unsourced
German numbers: 1,6 million troops /w 1 cavalry division,	1,8 million troops
German vehicles: 250,000 trucks and other such motor vehicles, 4000 tanks,	2,800 tanks
German artillery: 67,000 artillery pieces,	10,000 guns,
	Luftwaffe: 3,000 aircraft.
Polish numbers: 800,000 troops /w 11 cavalry brigades and 2 motorized brigades	1 million soldiers,	600,000 Polish troops were mobilised by Sep 1.
Polish artillery: 30,000 artillery pieces,	4,300 guns,
Polish vehicles: 120 7-TP tanks	880 tanks,	132 7-TP and 300 tankettes.
Polish airforce400 aircraft: 160 of them were PZL P.11c fighter aircraft, 31 PZL P.7a and 20 P.11a fighters, 120 PZL P.23 reconnaissance-bombers, and 45 PZL P.37 medium bombers.	435 aircraft.	169. fighters

Some sources:

Polish PWN encyclopedia: Poland: 1 million for mobilised soldiers (calling it 70% of total planned). 4,3 guns and mortars, ok. 880 tanks and armoured cars (the armoured cars would explain the too large 880 tank number) and 400 military plains. Germans: 1,6 mln soldiers, ~10 tys. guns and mortars, over 2,7 tanks and 1,3 tys. military planes.

Britannica gives few numbers: 2,000 German planes (1,000 fighters and 1,050 bombers) and 1,500,000 soldiers. For Poland: 1,000,000 soldiers, 500 planes (300 fighters, 200 bombers)

Finally, with help of Usenent, one more publication (Polish): Marian Zgórniak, "Europa w przededniu wojny. Sytuacja militarna w latach 1938 – 1939" and this page, it has rather credible printed references on the bottom: Germany: 1,5 mln, but those only? (usenet is sometimes confusing) frontline troops (and or from which? 750,000 on western front), as total Werhmacht is 3,700,000 (-this includes all German borders and second line troops, logistics, etc.), Luftwaffe 700,000 (same all troops) and Kriegsmarine 122,000 (all troops). 187,000 of vehicles (with ~110,000 in reserve) including: 2,600 tanks (~100 in reserve), 85,000 trucks, 40,000 passanger cars, 62,000 motorcycles, 74,000 horse pulled vehicles and 363,000 horses. 7,200 artillery guns (~4,000 in reserve), 7,500 antitank (~2,500 in reserve) and 9000 mortars and granade launchers. Planes: 2,800 and (or from which??) 1,300 on western front. Poland: Between 750,000-1,000,000 mobilised (out of 1,500,000 target). 3,400 artillery guns, 450 antiair guns, 1,200 antitank guns, 1,200 mortars, 3,850 granade launchers. Vehicles: 211 light tanks (132 7TP, rest would be 38 Vickersy E and ~50 Renault R35, bought but never made it to Poland by 1st September), 574 tankettes (300 TK-3, 274 TKS), 102 old R17 IWW tanks. Fighters: 397 frontlines, 373 second line ('anything that can fly'), 770 total. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The fifty R 35's did made it to Poland; another ordered fifty didn't :o)--MWAK 14:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Angriffshöhe 4000 by Cajus Bekker lists the following polish planes for September 1, 1939:
P 11c fighter: 129 in frontal units and 43 on schools/reserve, P 7 fighter: 30 in frontal units and 75 school/reserve, P23 light bomber: 118/85, P37 bomber: 36/30, R X111 recon:49/95, RWD 14 Czapla: 35/20. As source is stated Sikorski Institute, London and Lotnictwo Polskie (1939 Roku ?? - may belong to the title) by Adam Kurowski --Denniss 22:30, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

German planes: 648 bombers + 219 Stukas + 30 ground attack (Schlachtflugzeuge, AFAIK Hs 123) + 210 fighters/Zerstörer (Me 110) + 474 Recon/transport and others. Not included are fighters of the Reichsverteidigung (Home defence) and Heeresflieger (Army planes?). Losses : 63 recon + 67 fighter + 12 Me 110 + 78 bombers + 31 Stukas + 12 transport + 22 Navy planes and others. Personnel lost : 189 dead, 224 missed, 126 injured. Same source (book) as above --Denniss 22:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Tnx. Could you give references for the info in proper format, so I can add it to the article (or feel free to do it yourself :) ). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

As to the Polish Air Forces, the Polish Chief of Staff, Wacław Stachiewicz quotes the following numbers in his memoirs (Wacław Stachiewicz (1998). Wierności dochować żołnierskiej. OW RYTM. ISBN 83-86678-71-2.):

Type	Model	Total	Incl. in combat formations	Remarks
Number of planes on September 1st, 1939
Fighters	PZL P.11	175	140
	PZL P.7	105	30
Line planes light bombers/tactical bombers	PZL.23A	35	0
	PZL.23B	170	120
Bomber planes medium bombers	PZL.37 Łoś	61	36
	PZL.30 Żubr	15	0
Associate planes Surveillance aircraft and Army cooperation plane	Lublin R-XIII	150	55
	RWD-14 Czapla	60	40
Total		771	421

The planes outside of combat units category includes machines in training units, in repair yards and in reserve. Most of them were used in combat. Halibutt 16:59, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Important battles

The article is fairly long and all of this is now mentioned in main, so I moved this section here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Some of the more notable engagements of the September Campaign are:

• Battle of the border (September 1 - September 7) - series of battles, which caused Polish forces to abandon the defence of the borders
• Battle of Bzura (September 9 - September 18) - failed Polish counter-attack, the biggest battle of the campaign
• Battle of Warsaw (September 8 - September 28) - siege of the Polish capital
• Battle of Tomaszów Lubelski (September 17 - September 20) - second biggest battle of the campaign
• Battle of Kock (October 2 - October 5) - the last battle of the campaign, marking the capitualtion of the last regular unit of the Polish army

This article is almost twice the recommended size

This excellent article is 59k that is almost twice the recomended size. See Wikipedia:Article_size. I am not seriously demanding that the article is shortened but I request that people who think that this article can exceed the size limit allow this for other articles too, for e.g. Germany. -- Why do you mention Germany in particular???Please express your support at talk:Germany. Andries 18:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Deal :) I always said 32kb guideline does more harm then good - it should be a minimal size for FA requirement :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think quite a bit of this article can be relocated. The order of battle and list of equipment used by both sides just adds clutter to the article which is suppossed to be about the campaign itself. I think a few daughter pages would really help focus this article. Oberiko 21:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree and have already started Opposing forces in the Polish September Campaign. --mav 03:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Opposing forces -- Soviets?

Why does the "Opposing forces" section say nothing about the Soviet forces? – Kpalion (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There is the Soviet order of battle for invasion of Poland in 1939, but I admit the Soviet part is somewhat short. We could use few paras on their preparations, and actual battles (with Korpus Ochrony Pogranicza and such). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

nice tactic to push the POV

Yeah, it works really nice, Halibutt. I admit that my addition was not neutral in style, but I really like your retort. Add so many facts, presenting them in the way that benefits your agenda and then rewrite the original text so that it benefits your agenda too (e.g. present your own interpretation as fact). The fact that your original reaction was a revert shows very well that you don't care about NPOV, you care about presenting Poland in the best possible light. Others might want to read this, for example.

This normally requires both sides to dump everything they can find into the article and then we can only hope that other editors can fix the mess, bringing some balance upon the text. Unfortunately, if one side is more willing to spend its time, it usually wins. So for this reason I concede defeat. Well, at least there is some coverage of the Bloody Sunday - better than nothing.

It's really hard to write NPOV articles about controversial subjects, such as national history. I've noticed so many problems with Wikipedia coverage that I would always take any historical article here with a huge grain of salt and consider it inherently biased. Paranoid 17:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?! If adding only one side of the story is NPOV and adding the other part of it is POV, then I'm sure both of us should re-read the relevant wiki rules. The problem is that civilian losses in the Polish Defensive War of 1939 were mostly on the Polish side and mostly because of orders from the above. Whichever way you'll turn that cat, the numbers will speak for themselves. I know I should assume your good faith, but I'm afraid that your intentions were not as good as they should be. I got an impression that by adding the mention of the Nazi propaganda version of the Bloody Sunday and not a single word on either the context or at least the behaviour of the other side in this conflict you tried to create an impression that the only side to commit atrocities against civilians were the Poles, while it was the other way around. Personally, I find the Bloody Sunday incident completely non-notable (given the number of other massacres that happened at the time) and if it was left up to me to chose, I would leave it as a link in the See also section. However, if you believe that it should be in the article, then we should also mention other such cases. And accusing me of trying to push some POV here is disgusting, to say the least.

BTW, if you believe that we should list here all the cases of atrocities against civilians in 1939, then please be so kind as to start. However, I doubt we could list them all - there were simply too many cases of mass murder, committed by the Germans. Halibutt 21:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Source needed

For the below quotation and info, which was removed from main article recently. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that as of 1939 Poland and Romania were allied against the Soviet Union. Despite that fact, Soviet Union was willing to help Poland defend itself against the Germany. France and the United Kingdom asked Poland to provide the Soviet Union (which was at that time allied with France) with a narrow corridor to attack the Germany together with the French forces. Polish government flatly refused, saying "With the Germans we risk to lose our freedom, with Russians we risk to lose our soul".

Battle of Mława

Could somebody squeeze in the Battle of Mława somewhere? I found a place to put the Battle of Mokra since it was already mentioned in the article but I'm not sure where to put the other one. Richard Cane 18:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is in the battlebox, so we don't have to go to great lenght to put it in the text, I think.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Puppet government

Molobo, referring to this edit of yours, you may want to explain the rationale behind it. I think the part you restored is not just misleading (as the Germans would have installed a puppet government, not the Poles), but pointless: What exactly has the lack of a puppet government to do with the myth that "Poland offered little resistance and surrendered quickly"? If I'm missing a train of thought by which the lack of a puppet government dismantles this myth, please elaborate. --Thorsten1 11:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have read it in various sources that one of the things that differentiated Poland from most (all?) countries conquered by Germany was that there have been no high-level collaborators - i.e. no Vidkun Quisling or Philippe Pétain to create a pro-German, puppet government for GG. Though to be fair, there was at least one attempt, after Sikorski death in 1943, in France - but discarded by Germans themselves. I can't recall the name of details, or google them easily :(--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact there were several of such attempts from both sides, but little is known of the details and even less would suggest that such attempts at creation of some sort of a Polish Quisling were initiated by Hitler himself. For instance, they tried to force Bartel to create a Polish government after he was arrested, but little came out of it and it appears that it was a private initiative of Goering, Goebbels or perhaps some other high-ranking German and not necessarily of Hitler. Halibutt 16:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus and Halibutt, I did certainly not intend to enter any debate about under what circumstances there could have been a Polish Quisling. Of course, the fact that there was none has long since solidified into a Polish myth itself; this is why even hints on small-scale acts of collaboration, like those presented by Jan Gross or Anetta Rybicka in her thesis on the involvement of Polish scholars with the Kraków-based "Institute for German Labour in the East" (see here), continue to cause such stirs in the Polish public. In the last analysis, however, the Polish "No-Quisling myth" undoubtedly contains a rock-solid core of truth.

However, my question remains if the absence of a Polish Quisling dismantles any "myth" about the September Campaign; or if it has anything to do with the campaign at all. If the answer is "no" (and I suppose it is), I suggest that the part restored by Molobo be removed again, because it is at best redundant and at worst confusing the uninitiated, who are likely to ask themselves the same question as I have. --Thorsten1 19:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I saw some Polish Quisling-type myths some time ago, though I'm not sure. Anyway, the Polish collaboration seems to be a myth of its own, both in Poland and abroad. Halibutt 00:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The labels "Polish" and "collaborator" are mutually exclusive, of course. But seriously, could you shed some light on the obscure notion that the - totally undisputed - lack of a puppet government has anything to do with myths about the September Campaign? Looking forward to your (or anyone's) comment, --Thorsten1 22:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Personaly I don't care much either way for whether this stays or not. It is not extremly relevant, but since in the aftermath we discuss many consequences of the Polish occupation, I see no harm in mentioning that Poland's government went into exile and there was no puppet government installed in its place. Just a tidbit of information, I don't see how it would be confusing - but I wont object to its removal.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, in itself this tidbit of information is perfectly correct, hardly confusing and disputed by no one. What I object to is its current place; in the given context it conveys an implicit message which is simply incorrect. Let me try and explain this again. The paragraph is set to redress myths about the September campaign. One such myth is paraphrased as "Poland offered little resistance and surrendered quickly". It then lists various arguments against the myth, namely: 1) "the September Campaign lasted only about one week shorter than the Battle of France"; 2) "the Germans consumed eight months worth of [...] supplies in [...] barely a month"; 3) "Poland [...] never officially surrendered"; 4) "[Poland] never set up a puppet government". In this context, argument 4 obviously implies that the Germans had intended to install a puppet government, but somehow failed because the Polish resistance was stronger than the myth of the quick Polish surrender admits. However, to the best of my knowledge (and I daresay it isn't the worst), there have never been any tangible German plans to install a puppet government in Poland. And even if there had been, their failure would have had nothing to do with the September Campaign. Ergo, the absence of a puppet government does not contribute to dismantling the "quick surrender" myth in any conceivable way, and has no reason to be there. Get my drift now? :) --Thorsten1 21:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a myth of widespread Polish collaboration, in this context we can give this information. --Molobo 13:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC) there have never been any tangible German plans to install a puppet government in Poland. There have been attempts towards Home Army and Poles to join German war effort before Warsaw Uprising.I can gladly provide you with quotes from scholary work on the subject. --Molobo 13:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I partially agree with Torsten here, as this article is on Defensive War of 1939, not the situation in Poland in 1944... Halibutt 13:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The myth mentions France's war so it is already relating to events beyond the September Campaign. --Molobo 13:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, Could you possibly be more specific? You now rephrased the statement in question to "Despite accusations of widespread collaboration Poles never set up a puppet government." This is utterly non-sensical.

Firstly, let me repeat that the paragraph is supposed to dismantle myths about the September Campaign, which is what the article is about. The article is definitely not supposed to discuss more complex issues relating to the entire five year occupation, or even only its final months. You wrote that "The myth mentions France's war so it is already relating to events beyond the September Campaign." The only reason why "France's war" is mentioned is that the September Campaign is being compared to it in order to qualify the notion of Poland's quick surrender. (Whether this comparison fulfills its purpose or not is another story.) This does certainly not give you a carte blanche to pad out the statement with unrelated stuff to get a political point across.

Secondly, apart from being chronologically out of place, the sentence you put in is factually wrong and logically inconsistent. What "accusations of widespread collaboration" are you talking about exactly? The type of "collaboration" that Polish wartime society is sometimes reproached with refers to phenomena such as the Jedwabne massacre, the infamous szmalcownictwo (i.e., blackmailing Jews in hiding or Poles hiding Jews), or a general passivity and indifference about the fate of Polish Jewry. (If and to what extent such generalising accusations are justified is certainly open to debate; at the same time it should be noted that the prevalence of such accusations abroad is grossly overstated by conservative political circles within Poland.) At any rate, this kind of low-level "collaboration" is a far cry from any political or administrative involvement or even a puppet government. Thus, the absence of a puppet government does not at all invalidate the charge of low-level "collaboration", as you wish to insinuate ("Despite [...]").

"Poles never set up a puppet government." At the risk of repeating myself, the Poles simply never even had a chance to set up a puppet government. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that the Poles would have necessarily collaborated on a larger scale if they had been invited to collaborate; they deserve the benefit of the doubt as much as anyone. On the other hand, one can hardly praise their incorruptibility when no one even tried to corrupt them. Even if the Germans, as late as summer 44, did attempt to drum up support from the Home Army in a transparent last-ditch effort in the face of the Soviets' advance (after all, the Germans and the Home Army had a common enemy in them), a "puppet government" was never really on the agenda. And even if it had been, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the September Campaign and the myths about it.

No matter how you look at it, simply everything about the sentence is incorrect and misleading. Unfortunately, your article edits and argumentation here speak volumes about the boorish approach to history that you have burdened Wikipedia with for the last couple of months. --Thorsten1 23:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It should not be forgotten that in the original M-R pact it was forseen that Germany would create a Polish puppet state and have Lithuania in its sphere of influence. In September the agreement was changed: Germany was allowed to annexate Poland and the Soviet-Union to occupy Lithuania.--MWAK 09:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

MWAK, I must admit that this is news to me. As far as I know, the agreement was signed on 23 August 1939 as quoted below and never changed. The parts concerning the future political and territorial future of Poland read:

"Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments." ([5], identical with all websites and printed sources available to me.)

This wording does certainly not rule out the possibility of an "independent" Polish puppet government, but it does not make it appear very likely, either. In case I am wrong and there was indeed a plan to install a puppet government which was cancelled due to events during, or related to, the Campaign, I would like to learn more. --Thorsten1 23:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The secret protocol is indeed vague; the particulars become much clearer by the wording of the subsequent Soviet-German dipolomatic contact: on 19 September Molotov informed the German ambassador that Stalin would be willing to allow a full German annexation; on 25 September Schulenberg was invited to Stalin personally and on that occasion the deal was proposed to swap the annexation for Soviet domination of Lithuania; this was confirmed on 29 September during Von Ribbentrop's visit to Moscow. So you're right in that the wording of the pact doesn't indicate an agreement on the formation of a puppet state; on the other hand a full annexation was apparently seen by the Soviets as a concession that had to be compensated — and the Germans didn't (dare to) disagree.--MWAK 16:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. But do we conclude from this that the Germans handed over Lithuania to the Soviets because they originally had a plan for a puppet government, which was then abandoned because the Polish resistance in the Campaign had proved stronger than expected? Not really. Therefore, my initial criticism of the wording proposed by Molobo remains valid. --Thorsten1 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

War on the Soviet Union?

Why did France and the United Kingdom not declare war on the Soviet Union as well? I find it confusing because I often hear "they didn't want Hitler to take over the world;" however, England and France had been doing the same for decades. I don't get why Germany is blamed for the start of WW2 when the Soviets did the same. I would argue that France and the UK did by declaring war on Germany, thoughts? Volksgeist 01:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you are wrong.

1) The deal between UK and Poland in secret addendum specified that the European Power mentioned in treaty is Germany 2) The deal specify that it was up to Poland what is, and what is not dangering of Polish sovereignty. 3) Poland choosed not to fight with soviets. Only those units, which because of communication problems had not received Smigly's order "with soviets do not fight" were fighting 4) Germany attacked Poland, which was allied with UK and France. Germany knew that Poland is allied with France with quite a long time, and that she is allied with UK as well. Therefore, Germany knew it attacked ALLIANCE. Therefore, Germany started the war, not UK and France, since UK and France has no other possibility: they just had to honour theit obligations. Szopen 12:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Volksgeist has several good points and I'll try to answer them. The UK and France PROBABLY didn't declare war on the USSR because

1. Germany invaded Poland first, the USSR came in I BELIEVE 2 weeks later.

2. How would British and French troops get to the USSR? Mabybe thru Germany...

3. The UK and France MIGHT have known the military power of Germany, and therfore didn't want to fight to many wars.

As for not wanting Hitler take over the World, that's like having Iran or North Korea taking over the World today. Germany gets blamed for the war because of anti-Germanism in the world today (you laugh, but it's true. Blonde jokes are a small form of anti-Germanism, but that is considered OK for some reason). The UK and France starting the war thing I don't agree with because if they didn't fight Hitler, he would have overrun all of Europe almost unopposed. Cameron Nedland 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Supply consumption

"the Germans consumed eight months worth of fuel, spare parts, ammunition and other supplies in a campaign that lasted barely a month.". Use of fuel, spare parts etc. is not usually measured in months, because the amount of fueld and parts you use is hugely dependent on what you are doing: unless you are comparing the usage with regular peacetime usage, in which case getting through eight months worth is unsurprising. COuld whoever wrote this give a source, so that we can find out what it really means? DJ Clayworth 05:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What is meant is: "eight months of fuel etc. production". However this production was at the time steeply increasing. In January German stocks were again at a pre-war level.--MWAK 09:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, this is misleading. I don't recall a source for this, and so we may want to move it here until a reference is provided.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I found that piece extremely dubious, too, but refrained from commenting in order not to appear even more anti-Polish than I already do... --Thorsten1 23:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• smirk* --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, as such the statement is roughly correct :o). Details can be found in Frieser's Blitzkrieg-Legende. Early October the Germans had largely depleted their artillery ammunition stocks. When Hitler learned of this after the campaign, he became so furious the general responsible for it committed suicide. Had Stalin been fully aware of the extreme German weakness, it might well have been finis Germaniae there and then.--MWAK 16:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Small clashes

The defence of Grodno wasn't a small clash. Xx236 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Want to write an article on it? I started a stub. Halibutt 14:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Independent Operational Group Polesie

The English name should probably be used in the article.

Centralny Okręg Przemysłowy? Brześć? Who can pronounce Brześć? Xx236 12:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Myths: New Tactics

I think the last point (Germans employing new/daring tactics) in the myths section should be removed for a simple reason. Unlike the other three points which can be proven to be myths this point is more subjective and open to debate. The points about Poland (calvary, the air force, and resistance) can genuinely be called myths because there is clear proof that Poles did not charge tanks with lances or that most of the Polish air force was not destroyed at the start of the war but the last point is not as easy to classify because it depends far more on the opinion of the person studying the history of war and its battles. The opinion of one historian/journalist alone and one citation of his work does not make this point a fact in any way. Its certainly not enough to simply label something like this a myth. The whole idea of classifying the "daring" or "originality" of German tactics during the September Campaign as a myth is out of line unless somebody can prove that is now the general concensus among most historians. The section itself even starts off by saying "some" authors have dismissed the idea - this suggest that there is no one generally accepted opinion on the subject. I beleive it should be removed as soon as possible from the list of "myths". I will personally refrain from taking it from the list until I hear other opinions. --Nikostar 19:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You can look at wikipedia's own page on Blitzkrieg for starters.

Despite the term blitzkrieg being coined during the Polish September Campaign of 1939, historians generally hold that German operations during it were more consistent with more traditional methods.

If nothing else at least this article would be consistent with that. Michael Dorosh 19:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I already read the Blitzkrieg article and read that quotation but that does not justify for me why the point should remain for several reasons

- The quote in the Blitzkrieg is not cited and nowhere else in the article is it elaborated upon. It may have been added at some point by anyone and may not be entirely accurate in explaining the views of most historians. Like I said there is no source for the accuracy of that brief statement and it is not elaborated upon, it also contradicts much of what is said in detail in the article about Blitzkrieg being the result of tactics developing after the First World War. - The main body of the Blitzkrieg article does go into more detail and does explain that many of the tactics used by the German army in the early years of the European war were relatively innovative and emulated by other armies both during and after the war. - The whole argument for calling it a myth here is contradictory to the Blitzkrieg article. The "myth argument" here starts off with "The myth of Blitzkrieg was been dispelled....". The Blitzkrieg article on the other hand has little to no sources defining Blitzkrieg as a myth, instead it clearly define what was unique about the tactics used in early war years and how it affected later military planning.

The first line of Blitzkrieg article - Blitzkrieg (German, literally lightning war) is a popular name for an operational-level military doctrine which employed mobile forces attacking with speed and surprise to prevent an enemy from implementing a coherent defense. The doctrines resulting in the blitzkrieg effect were developed in the years after World War I as a method to help prevent trench warfare and linear warfare.

The article makes no mention of Blitzkrieg being dismissed as myth or of it being a rehash largely of centuries-old tactics, despite the one sentence you quoted. All of which contradicts labelling the innovatiness of German Blitzkrieg tactics during the Septermber Campaign a myth. The whole thing is just too subjective to me and there are too many contradictions here to justify using the word myth on this subject. --Nikostar 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem not to have a firm grasp on the basic issues at hand and yet you continue to prosecute your views loud and long. Historian Matthew Cooper has been quoted at length; how many more do you think need to litter the page before you are satisfied? Let me know and I'll find the cites. In the meantime, why not let readers judge for themselves?

You can't simply stand off and say "it isn't a myth." Present some evidence as to why you think the opposite is true - ie either that

• the Germans did indeed use innovative tactics in new ways, or
• the Germans did not do this, but "everyone" knows it

Given the comments in the Blitzkrieg article, I'd suggest that the myth is alive and well. One of the things about myths is that lots of people write about them, few destroy them once they've taken hold - hence a shortage of quotes.

Like I say, let me know how many cites will satisfy you, because frankly, I have no idea what it is you're looking for.Michael Dorosh 23:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No you can not seem to graspe what I am saying. And Matthew Cooper is one scholar - his opinion is in no way the final word on the issue and in no way constitutes a concensus on the issue. And I never said it was not a myth directly. I simply said the Blitzkrieg article suggest otherwise and there is nothing here in this article other than one quote from one historian to back up the argument that Blitzkrieg should be defined as a myth - that is not enough for such a subjective issue. And I am sorry if you disagree with the Blitzkrieg article but it was not written by me and like I said it contradicts what is written here about German tactics. I would say in view of that and the fact that there are no relevant new facts on this page to suggest a concensus about Blitzkrieg being largely a myth we should remove it from the list. The list is not definitive anyway, nor is it such a vital part of the article that it can not be changed. The other three points in the myth list like I said seem perfectly valid and easy to prove and are all far more objective than the point about the nature of Blitzkrieg. If you personally think Blitzkrieg is myth then that is fine by me but its not enough to say "well some people write about myths and that's how they come about. Your arguments are not very convincing to be honest and before you attack mine, just remember that I am basing my arguments not on my own opinions but on a Wikipedia article with contributions from many users, an article that does not in any way confirm the "myth of Blitzkrieg" you are suggesting. And your point about lettin the readers decide for themselves is unacceptable. For one thing anyone can right any nonsense and defend it with that argument, for another thing calling something a myth is a very strong action and does not leave the uninformed much room to judge for themselves. This article should aim to be as accurate as possible to provide the reader with as much valuable and reliable information as possible and should not have to rely on hoping that people, including those with little knowledge on a subject, will be able to tell when something called a myth might not really be one or generally accepted as one. As I have several times, it is too subjective and is not neccesary unless it is done in such a way that it is proven to be the general opinion or intepretation of most mainstream historians.

--Nikostar 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Most tacticians would agree that Fall Weiss was hardly a typical Blitzkrieg- campaign. Cooper is not a lone voice. But this all depends on your definition of Blitzkrieg. If with this term is simply meant "Bewegungskrieg partly executed by mechanised forces", then yes, it was Blitzkrieg, but then all major armies had a manoeuvre warfare doctrine — and they weren't to leave their tanks and planes at home. Then there would be nothing particularly innovative about the war in Poland; it simply showed general technological advances made since 1918. If however one would desire to show something special was happening, like "True Blitzkrieg", there are two almost insurmountable difficulties: firstly, the campaign cannot be construed as an example of German Blitzkrieg doctrine (in the proper sense) as such a doctrine simply didn't exist in the first place; secondly, there are no references to such tactics in the German operational planning.--MWAK 08:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

MWAK, we already discussed that above and it seems pretty obvious that the Germans themselves called it a Blitzkrieg. Perhaps the later cases of its introduction to the battlefields differed (show me two identical battles), but they planned a Blitzkrieg in Poland and that's how it's called by most. Whether some historians argue that their advance in Poland turned out to be something completely different is interesting, but not enough to call it a myth. //Halibutt 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, it is completely evident the German High Command did not think in terms of "Blitzkrieg". Using this word nevertheless is ambiguous as two varieties of Bewegungskrieg are referred to by that word. They planned a traditional Bewegungskrieg. Calling it a Blitzkrieg is misleading. What happened was that due to the low concentration of Polish forces the Bewegungskrieg almost inevitably began to approach a True Blitzkrieg. Nevertheless, despite all the ample room for manoeuvring, no serious deep strategic penetrations were launched — and neither were they planned — except for the dash by Guderian, which was allowed after a lot of discussion and a change of plans. Certainly any suggestion should be avoided the Polish Campaign was the first instance of a revolutionary new doctrine as such a doctrine did not exist. The handbook scenario for a classic Blitzkrieg — breakthrough by armour on a small sector, swift penetration by armour over the full strategic theater depth without regard for flank threats, operational collapse of the enemy through organisatorial overload — cannot be found in the German pre-war handbooks. These describe and prescribe the traditional mechanism: breakthrough by infantry in an army-wide sector, exploitation by armour, consolidation by armour, advance by infantry, concentration of artillery and infantry and again breakthrough by infantry.--MWAK 16:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Prelude section

The very beginning of this section clearly needs corrections:

• First about "Annexation" of AT and CS that the article claims. One may start with Annexation or Union chapter of the Anschluss article itself to see that the issue whether the term "annexation" is appropriate isn't settled.
• As for the CS, Hitler took it over not through "annexation" but through an international agreement, while in the latter case Czechs had little say in what powers decided for them. Annexation is by definition a unilateral action. You CANNOT annex something through a treaty, even an unjust treaty imposed by a stronger on the weaker. This may be called a "takeover" but I am worried by the widespread inappropriate usage of the A. word in Wiki. You annex something when you take it and say "That's mine!", rather than decide what belongs to who through multi- or bi-lateral treaties, no matter how unfair ones. Český Těšín perhaps was an annexation. Someone who knows more of the details of the Munich agreement should know whether giving Tesin to Poland was a part of a deal or whether Poland just grabbed it because it got a chance. In the latter case, this was an annexation.
• The lack of the chronological order is a problem too. The first paragraph mostly talks about early-to-mid 30s. Suddenly this is interjected twice with 38-39 events. OTOH, the second paragraph talks about late-30s (which makes sense). The result is perhaps an accidental effect that when Hitler's taking over of CS is first mentioned (anachronistically in the first paragraph), the Polish taking benefit from it by invading Tesin is omitted and only when the article returns to the Munich agreement in the second paragraph the info on the takeover of Český Těšín is given to a reader. This confusion may be addressed by removing and/or finding a better place for phrases in the very first paragraph that talk about the late-30s events. The problem with "annexation" may be addressed by simply rephrasing.
• About Germany withdrawing from the Polish-German pact, there are two contradictory phrases, one claiming that it happened on "April 28" (without the year given) and the other having it at "August 28". In the latter case it can be derived from the text that it was meant to say 1939. But two confusing dates, one without a year (unless there are two different events that are simply not explained) need to be addressed. (Additionally, the MR pact article speaks about a third date: March 1939 which is also not helping a reader to figure this all out)
• There is nothing in the prelude of the failed Soviet attempts to reach out to France, Britain and Poland on building the anti-Nazi alliance. We may talk about the reasons and understandable suspicions that Poland and allies considered important enough to turn the Soviet offers down and risk colliding with Germany on their own, but I can't believe that the very fact of the Soviet attempts before the R-M Pact doesn't belong to the article at all. The R-M Pact is covered here prominently (deservedly without a doubt) but it is important to give some context of Soviets attempts to make an alliance

I only looked at one not-so-long section here and without even giving it too much scrutiny. I checked the May 30, 2005, edition, when the article got promoted to "featured" and everything I said applies to that day's version of this chapter as well. Also, the June 19, 2005, edition when the article was displayed at mainpage was the version with these same problems. Am I too harsh or the "Featured" tag is indeed applied to articles rather liberally? The article needs a thorough attention in order to support the prestige of the "Featured" label. --Irpen 03:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The main problems here is that voters look at the articles formally: whether they have many refs, whether the citations are formatted properly, whether there are no short passages, etc. They seldom try to analyze its content and decide whether the article is POV or not, whether it represents all points of view or is full of nationalist rant (as is the case here). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Read again. The chapter you linked to is pretty clear in that English sources call it annexation and not union. It's only in Germany that the term (not exactly precise) is used. Besides, there's no contradiction in that.
2. Then fix the word if you must. Though, as you know, I don't agree with your opinion that there is no annexation through treaty. Treaties too can be unilateral even if signed by many sides. In theory in 1945 Poland could decline to "cede" a 3rd part of its territory to the Soviets, just like in theory Czechoslovakia could refuse to the Germans. But in fact neither of the states had anything to say. Besides, there's no contradiction in that.
3. I don't believe there is a need to introduce strict chronological order here. This section is by definition broad as it's meant to describe all relevant facts both that lead up to the Nazi-Soviet invasion and that describe the international situation of all sides. So, it must be focused on a plethora of different things, and I'd keep them in the order of relation to one another rather than in chronological one. Besides, there's no contradiction in that.
4. Corrected that. A simple typo apparently.
5. Perhaps because there were no serious attempts of the Soviets to reach out to Poland. There were talks with France and the UK, but Poland was not involved whatsoever. Feel free to add a separate article on that though. Halibutt 09:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why separate article? Every possible attack on Russia and the Soviets is duplicated in every Polish related article. Just recently, Molobo pasted a chunk from the Red Army to the History of PL and you did nothing when I tried to remove it as too a narrow material for such a broad article. OTOH, any info on the hypocricy of the interwar Polish position has to be in a "separate article". This would be a big disservice to Wikipedia to hide the info directly relevant to the events in question.

OK, I will do some reading and will write the info since you seem not interested. But please do not tell me to which article though. This is no less relevant than the R-M pact itself. --Irpen 09:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just recently, your buddy Molobo pasted a chunk from the Red Army to the History of PL to your applause. Sorry but you are continuing to misinform.The section isn't pasted anymore at your request.

hypocricy of the interwar Polish position has to be in a "separate article" Irpen what is hypocritical about Polish opposition to be occupied by Soviets ? --Molobo 09:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

To improve the quality of the article I added links to original diplomatic exchange taking place between Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in regards to their alliance against Poland. --Molobo 10:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Our FA standards improve all the time. I would not put this - nor most of my previous FA - to today's FAC, but they were good a year ago. If you think it should be de-FAed, there is the Wikipedia:Featured articles removal candidates, but I don't think that this article is beyond repairing. Regarding your points: 1) and 2) feel free to correct the use of annexation as you see fit 3) feel free to rewrite it so it's better chronologically 4) this is a contradiction, a reference is needed - I'll look for something soon 5) expantion would be useful, as well as more references; in addition, while reading part of our History of Lithuania I also stumbled upon the proposed Polish-Lithuanian alliance.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the separate article, I am sure eventualy a Foreign relations of Poland (1918-1939) should be written. Do we need it know will depend on amount of material added, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

German civilian losses

I have always read the number of 5.000 German civilians as killed during September campaign - due to bombings, some of them being drafted into Polish service, general war conditions AND also some incidents like in Bydgoszcz/Bromberg. The 500 number is IMO incorrect Szopen 08:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say your opinion is of no more use than anyone else's. A source would be required.Michael Dorosh 15:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone has access to De Zayas book? Something about civilians losses was in Pospieszalski's "Case of 58.000 volksdeutche", but he estimated them for about 2.000, IIRC. There were also Serwanski's "Bloody Sunday". 5.000 is imo the number from German centre for graves (forgot German name) which was gathering informations about German civilians losses. This number was then in February 1940 raised without any basis to 58.000. Szopen 12:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the Bromberg death toll (which varies from roughly 300 confirmed deaths to over 50,000 in German WWII propaganda), I can't think of any other situation where the German civilians could've suffered. It is possible that the German sources list Polish citizens of German descent as Germans, though there is a serious logical flaw in such reasoning. Acording to international law, these were Polish citizens. Even if we assume that the German annexation of Poland was legitimate, the switch in citizenship did not occur until after the conquest of Poland. So, in other words, treatment of Polish citizens who perished in 1939 as if they lived long enough and signed the Volksliste is an absurd. Such reasoning also suggests that they would indeed sign it.

BTW, the same problem is with estimates of all the other civilian deaths of WWII. Many sources automatically assume the Nazi way, that is divide the people slain in the death camps by the category granted to them by the Nazi regime, regardless of their actual ethnicity or nationality. This is particularly visible in the case of Jews. A person whose grandfather was a christened Jew would be considered a Jew by the Nazis, regardless of the fact that both of his parents and himself considered himself Germans. //Halibutt 12:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, Bromberg was not the only case of German civilians killed (by Poles) in Poland during September. There were isolated accidents here and there, few dying and killed during internment marches, and total German volksdeutsche losses were identified by Germans themselves for about 5000. As I said above, those include civilians (which were killed in accidents as in Bromberg, but mostly probably as effects of bombings and general war conditions) and Germans drafted to Polish army. Szopen 15:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's hope we can find a source to quote. Anything on Google Print? I could find nothing (in a quick search).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

For Polish speaking contributors i recommand this bulletin from IPN : http://www.ipn.gov.pl/biuletyn12-1_35-36.pdf There is an interview with professor Kulesza where certain issues invloved with this subject and Bydgoszcz are touched. Before we classify German civilians as victims we have to know what role many of them played in 1939, I shall give a fragment in Polish(as people here are Polish speaking), as I don't have much time(we can translate this later to english): We wcześniej prowadzonych śledztwach ustaliliśmy, że przed niemiecką napaścią na Polskę w Bydgoszczy i na terenie całego Pomorza stworzono warunki, w których od początku napadu na Polskę mogły rozpocząć działalność struktury organizacji Selbstschutz. Członkowie tej organizacji, jak sami określali swe zadania, mieli zapobiegać atakom na niemiecką mniejszość ze strony polskiej ludności cywilnej i polskich żołnierzy maruderów. W rzeczywistości jednak od początku swego istnienia do grudnia 1939 r. Selbstschutz działał ludobójczo, tworząc komanda, które dokonywały masowych egzekucji Polaków w ramach akcji likwidacji inteligencji polskiej i polskich warstw przywódczych na Pomorzu. Ta zbrodnicza akcja nosiła kryptonim „Przedsięwzięcie Góra Jodłowa” – „Unternehmen Tannenberg”. Współdziałały w jej przeprowadzeniu także grupy operacyjne pod kierunkiem gestapo oraz jednostki specjalne SS. Akcję tę opracowano w szczegółach w Głównym Urzędzie Bezpieczeństwa Rzeszy (RSHA) pod kierunkiem Wernera Besta. Wiemy, że egzekucji Polaków dokonywano na podstawie list imiennych, które były zestawiane w RSHA w Berlinie. Wiemy, że owe listy imienne sporządzał niejaki dr Emil von Augsburg. Po wojnie wysoki funkcjonariusz zachodnioniemieckiego wywiadu – Instytutu Gehlena zatrudniony tam jako specjalista do spraw polskich. O tym, że akcję mordowania polskiej inteligencji przeprowadzono według wcześniej przygotowanych list, wiemy z różnych źródeł, także z bardzo nielicznych procesów, jakie toczyły się po wojnie również w Niemczech. W Bydgoszczy była kwatera kolejnych szefów Selbstschutzu, SS-Oberführerów Wilhelma Langleista, a następnie Ludolfa von Alvenslebena. Od pierwszych tygodni okupacji dokonywano morderstw na Polakach poprzez masowe ich rozstrzeliwania. Od września do grudnia 1939 r. zamordowano w sumie sześćdziesiąt tysięcy Polaków. Wspominam o tej akcji dlatego, że nie mam wątpliwości, iż listy polskiej inteligencji, polskich urzędników, lekarzy, nauczycieli, duchownych sporządzano dzięki informacjom przekazywanym także przez Niemców, obywateli polskich, którzy później, już w uniformach, działali w strukturach Selbstschutzu. Pytany przeze mnie niemiecki historyk Dieter Schenk, od lat współpracujący z Główną Komisją, wyjaśnia, że na Pomorzu istniały wcześniej przygotowane struktury organizacyjne, dlatego akcja wymordowania polskiej inteligencji mogła zostać przeprowadzona na tak wielką skalę tylko na tym obszarze już w pierwszych miesiącach niemieckiej okupacji. So it is quite possible that those "civilian victims" are in fact members of the genocidal organisation of German minority called Selbstschutz that engaged in diversion and were killed in process. We can't rule out that possibility. --Molobo 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"before we classify German civilians as we have to know what role many of them played in 1939," LMAO, then we must also do so for the Polish citizens as well. We cannot try to pass judgement on one group of civilians because they are Germans while assuming the other group (the poles) is totally innocent. This is petty racism on your part Molobo, and I know I'm going to get a NPA warning for simply stating your remarks pretend that all Poles are innocent while all Germans must be investigated.

If we are to investigate the civilian deaths of the Germans in an attempt to find a fault in them then we must also do so for all the Polish deaths. For instance, the numerous times you say that the Luftwaffe intentionally strafed columns of civilians, you cannot say without a doubt that there was not a single soldier or other military equipment in the immediate area. for the bombing of Wielun as an example, in order to prove that it was an intentional bombing of civilians, one would have to provide documents that show that the commanders did not have intel reports stating that there was polish units in the area.

--Jadger 01:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

can anyone tell me why on Wikipedia, when German civilians are killed by Poles they are "executed" or it is an act of self-defense, but when a single Pole is killed it is mass murder? --Jadger 01:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Provide diffs and links - or explain the situation a tad more. Also, you might want to read the article on, say, bombing of Dresden and check it for yourself. //Halibutt 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the first total wars

Jadger, you're not reading closely enough. Poland was one of the first "total" war battles in modern European history, meaning that civilians were specifically targeted and died in numbers as large as the soldiers.Michael Dorosh 02:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

but it says "one of the first", which means absolutely nothing, as there has only been like 4 or 5 total wars in Europe, so they can all claim to be "one of the first" thats like the loser of a boxing match saying that they were runner-up, its simply clouds the issue and twists words, I dont even think the sentence is needed. And that is not what "total war" means, Total war was a theory of Clausewitz's, it has nothing to do with mass murder and genocide.

Also why did u edit it to say "Polish Defensive War" in this part of the article, when we have already established it as being called the Polish September Campaign. the term Polish Defensive War is POV, see the Talk:Evacuation of East Prussia to see another example of this when it was called the Prussian Holocaust.

--Jadger 03:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree mostly with your current edit Michael Dorosh, but I do not see why you add the information about what happened after the Polish September Campaign. I had previously added information on teh Katyn massacre, but it was removed because that happened after the Polish September Campaign, during the occupation of the country. This is why I have removed such added by you, as the Holocaust does not apply to the Polish September Campaign, as the Holocaust did not start until after the Wannsee conference. (that is, the "Holocaust" as a systematized institution of death, not includign other racial atrocities committed)

But it is only with the Holocaust casualties added in that the "total war" in Poland becomes one of the costliest, and in terms of percentage of the total population, is in fact THE costliest. But it did not get that way during the campaign itself.Michael Dorosh 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

--Jadger 16:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Polish defensive war is not POV, or at least not more POV than the German-oriented term Polish September Campaign. See the discussion above. //Halibutt 19:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

oh come on, it is to POV. what is POV about Polish September Campaign? lets break it down into its parts:

• Polish/Poland: the area of operations, easy enough
• September: the time of year it took place, also very simple
• Campaign: what it was, a military campaign, it is not considered a separate war by English historians, or most historians in any language for that matter.

now let us look at Polish Defensive war:

• Polish: same as above, only when connected with the next word it changes meaning slightly.
• Defensive: not attacking, but indeed the Poles did counter-attack. It gives the impression that Poland was a "damsel in distress" so to say, and did not protect itself.
• War: a separate entity upon itself from WWII. But according to you and the articles, Poland never signed a treaty with Germany to end this war that you say existed. The Poles kept on fighting elsewhere during WWII, as a continuation of this, now one cannot merge two wars into one, it was always one war, after all, the only reason France and Britain declared war upon Germany is because she attacked Poland.

the point of my discussion is not to dispute the name given by some, but the article is titled "polish september campaign" and so should remain named that throughout the article. Changing names numerous times throughout an article is bound to confuse readers, the note about the different names at the top is sufficient, and I have not deleted it. I have no problem with people calling it that, but it should use a single name on wikipedia, similar to the Danzig/Gdansk policy

--Jadger 21:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I already explained that a couple of times, but since scrolling up is that hard, I shall repeat that. The problem with the "September campaign" is that the term was coined by both Nazis and Soviets for a specific political and propaganda purpose. For them the Polish resistance ended after two weeks and the rest was just "mopping-up". Hence the September campaign (yet more than 10% of the conflict took place in.. October).

As to other issues you shouted about above (why shout, BTW?), there's not specific rule that would say we can't use different names in articles. In fact there is no problem as long as all the names are mentioned in the header. And it's a much neater solution than repeating the very same name 100 times in a row. And it's not going to confuse readers who read the header. That's what it's for. //Halibutt 02:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I never shouted, i bolded it to highlight it. THIS IS SHOUTING in internet language. I also like how you ignored my most potent fact that I pointed out, so I will repeat it again.

• War: a separate entity upon itself from WWII. But according to you and the articles, Poland never signed a treaty with Germany to end this war that you say existed. The Poles kept on fighting elsewhere during WWII, as a continuation of this, now one cannot merge two wars into one, it was always one war, after all, the only reason France and Britain declared war upon Germany is because she attacked Poland.

your statement that 10% of the conflict took place in October is deliberately misleading. 10% of the conflict did not occur in October, the operations in October were mostly mopping ups of the already defeated Polish forces. 10% of the timeline was in October, but not 10% of the campaign or the fighting. to quote the article "By 1 October, Germany and the Soviet Union had completely overrun Poland"

or perhaps I would like to point out that only four battles took place in October, which were minor battles at most, in the case of the battle of Kock, 250 were KIA, now we cna reasonably extrapolate that around 1000-5000 in total were killed in October (compared to the rest of the campaign were all the major battles took place). that reasonably means that ~61 000 were killed in sept. compared to ~5000 in October, that is well below 10%.

it is not a much "neater" solution to change the name half way through an article, and to constantly switch it back and forth at will. If however, I were wrong and that were the case, then there would of been no need for the lengthy discussion on the naming of Danzig/Gdansk. and if you are correct, then surely you wouldnt mind going and intermittently in the polish history sections of the article changing Gdansk to Danzig. I know an upstanding member of the Polish wikipedia community wouldnt arouse any objections to it, and if by slight chance you do, you can always use the same reasoning you have used here, perhaps refer them to this discussion, cuz changing the name up to Danzig will certainly add "spice" to the article

--Jadger 03:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I did address your point and there is really no reason to repeat it. There were more battles and skirmishes in October, though the five mentioned (you forgot Hel peninsula) in the campaignbox are the best known and the most important. It does not mention the heavy battles of Radzyń Podlaski, Łuków (both fought by the Polesie Operational Group in which it defeated the German 14th motorized corps), nor does it mention the battles of Wola Gułowska, Serokomla, Charlejów... And what you wrote above is exactly what the Nazis and the Soviets had in mind when they coined the term. "Mopping up".

BTW, please don't mix Danzig with this as that is a completely different case. //Halibutt 11:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

and what about the other countless not-as-important battles in September that are not listed? there were a great many more then in October, and easily off-set this increased number from you, it still remains at under 10%.

How is Danzig any different? one likes the name the one way, another likes it differently, and a final decision has been made. now you say different names add spice, but previously you wanted only a single name.

"mopping-up" does not mean that no major battles took place, it means the slowed down end of the campaign. for instance in the 2003 Iraq war, after it was officially called a victory, there was still major battles being fought. think of it as the outline of a story. The Climax being the most decisive and important battles, the mopping-up is the anti-climax, coming afterwards, characterized by a decline in operations.

--Jadger 21:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Expectations about the War

Removed None of the major participants — Germany, the Soviet Union, Poland or the Western Allies — expected that this German invasion of Poland would lead to a war surpassing World War I in scale and cost. from the article. It is simply false. It also has no citation for a source. If you put it back, make sure you give the source, or I will keep removing it until you do, under the Wikipedia:Cite your sources policy.

The reason that France and Britain had appeased Hitler for so long, is precisely the fear that another war would be as bad or worse than WWI. They declared war with extreme reluctance, and knew full well what they were now in for. In Germany, the population greeted news of the war with dismay. They were very afraid of what another war meant. I'm not even sure Hitler thought the war would be short; while he wished and hoped it would and may even publically tried to convince others things would be easy, I'm not sure he thought it would be. Hitler was a fatalist. He did things cause he felt he had to, not cause he thought they would be easy. Drogo Underburrow 04:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I'd agree with many of your points, I'd suggest that the truth lies probably halfway: some leaders suspected or expected it may be 'big', others did not. Can you provide any citations (for example for Hitler reasoning you mention)? Then we could add this modified part back.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"September Campaign" (II)

In view of an editor's questioning whether the name, "September Campaign," is used in serious historiography, I list several random publications that do use this name, or a variant, in their title, or whose contents refer to the "September Campaign" but never — so far as I can see — to a "1939 Defensive War."

• Płk dypl. (Col.) Henryk Piątkowski, Kampania wrześniowa w Polsce 1939 r. (The September Campaign in Poland 1939), London, Wydawnictwo Światowego Związku Polaków z Zagranicy (World League of Poles Abroad), 1946.
• Melchior Wańkowicz, Wrzesień żagwiący (Blazing September), London, Gryf, 1947.
• Wincenty Iwanowski, Kampania wrześniowa 1939 (The September Campaign 1939), Warsaw, Instytut Wydawniczy PAX, 1961.
• Apoloniusz Zawilski, Bitwy polskiego września (The Battles of the Polish September), 2 vols., Warsaw, Nasza Księgarnia, 1972.
• Norman Davies, God's Playground: a History of Poland, 2 volumes, New York, Columbia University Press, 1982.
• Adam Zamoyski, The Polish Way: a Thousand-Year History of the Poles and Their Culture, New York, Hippocrene Books, 1987 (5th printing, 2000).

logologist|Talk 06:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice you cite mostly Polish sources, and Norman Davies, who is criticised as a Polish-centric author. My question is, what about English-speaking historians? This is, after all, the English language version of Wikipedia, and we should name things as they are commonly named in English language sources. What things are called in Polish is not relevant. Drogo Underburrow 06:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In my comment above, I was in fact addressing that editor's questioning of whether "Polish Campaign" is used in Polish publications. What that Campaign is called in English-language publications is another, if interesting, question. What would you call it? Churchill should have called it "the Battle of Poland," but I haven't seen that expression anywhere. logologist|Talk 06:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I would call it "The Invasion of Poland, 1939". But that doesn't matter. It only matters what most English sources call it. Since I haven't read most English sources, I don't know what that is; someone who does know should comment. Drogo Underburrow 06:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Invasion of Poland 1939" sounds reasonable to me. logologist|Talk 08:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of Poland 1939 is what a fluent English speaker might intuitively call a Wikipedia article on the subject. Its also what a fluent English speaking person is most likely to put in a search box when looking for the article. Polish September Campaign to me sounds like a literal translation of a foreign phrase, and hence improper English. Its unlikely that a person fluent in English would use that phrase when searching for material. I suggest that the name of the article be changed to something that is better English. Drogo Underburrow 08:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I might consider voting for "Invasion of Poland 1939." logologist|Talk 09:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I would vote for that too.

As a matter of fact I agree that the "Defensive War" is probably only prominent in Poland (and it really is the name used in modern Polish publications; as I pointed out at the Polish wiki some time ago in fact the Polish authors usually use a set of other names as well, the "September campaign" being the least popular). However, I guess English or American writers do not care for that that much and they simply use the name others have used, regardless of whether the name is misleading or not. //Halibutt 11:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

GS=Google Scholar, GP=Google Print. "Polish September Campaign": GS-2, GP-3. "Polish Defensive War": GS-0, GP-0. "Battle of Poland" 1939: GS-2, GP-4. "Invasion of Poland" 1939: GS: 1040, GP: hundreds. It would indeed appear that "Invasion of Poland" is the most popular term, although probably it should be a disambig. Now, a disambig to where is the question: do we rename this article Invasion of Poland (1939) or keep it under the current name?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

indeed I as well would vote for Invasion of Poland, 1939 or something similar to that. the first time I tried searching for this article I typed in something similar, and there was no redirect at the time, so it was very difficult to find the article. All the documentaries that one watches on this say something along the lines of "WWII was started by the German invasion of Poland in 1939..." and all the books you read dont have a short neat name such as Defensive war or september campaign, its always a whole sentence or phrase such as above.

--Jadger 21:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

First act of war

Article states that: he first regular act of war took place on 1 September 1939, at 04:40 hours, when the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) attacked the Polish town of Wieluń, destroying 75% of the city and killing close to 1,200 people, most of them civilians. Five minutes later, at 04:45 hours, the old German battleship Schleswig-Holstein opened fire on the Polish enclave of Westerplatte at the Free City of Danzig on the Baltic Sea. . But Polish 111th Fighter Escadrille states that During the Polish September Campaign the first sortie - and the first success of the escadrille - took place on September 1, at 4 in the morning, that is roughly an hour before the fights for Westerplatte started, an event which is usually taken as the starting point of World War II. (...) Over the area of Bugo-Narew the enemy formation was intercepted and forced to retreat, dropping their bombs on uninhabited areas. Lt. Palusiński downed one enemy Dornier Do17.

Therefore I have two questions: should this info be noted in our current article as de facto first act of war, and can Palusiński's kill be claimed as the first plane killed in the IIWW? See also Talk:Polish 111th Fighter Escadrille.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There is an ongoing debate over the first shot fired. Apart from Westerplatte and Wieluń (the latter being regarded as the first one recently; the earlier being more popular), there are also several air fights that could claim the title. I explained a tad at Talk:Polish 111th Fighter Escadrille. //Halibutt 17:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be the battlecruiser KMS Schleswig-Holstein's shelling of the fortifications in Danzig harbor? Or even more than that, the company that advanced on the 29th of August and took a small Polish fortification due to confusion over orders?

Well, if we followed that logic then it would be the 70 men strong company under Hans Albrecht Herzner. They lost their way, did not receive the order calling off the invasion and invaded Poland on August 26. They seized a small, undefended railway station at the end of the Jabłonków pass and were bloodily repelled by the Polish border troops. But it was not yet a state of war back then. //Halibutt 14:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Slovakian commander?

Does anyone know who was leading the Slovakian troops?

According to [6], there were two groups, commanded by Anton Pulanich and Gustav Malar. Interestingly, this article mentions that a Czechoslovakian unit fought alongside Poles, too. Any information on that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. In short, after Czechoslovakia was overrun by the Krauts, several thousand Czech and Slovak soldiers crossed the border with Poland in order to continue their fight there. A Czechoslovak Legion was established, but it was stricken in the conflicts between various Czechoslovak emigree politicians and between Polish commanders too. In short, most of the pilots who escaped were then sent to the UK to form a Czechoslovak unit there (long before Poland was attacked; this was the basis of one of the most popular Czech films lately, the Tmavomodry svet), while a number of soldiers were accepted into the Polish Army as Czechoslovak Battalion. It took part in the struggles on the southern front, but did not play a major role and was eventually overrun by the Soviets. Check more here, but bear in mind that the page mentions only one side of the story.

As to the Slovaks - they fielded a Field Army with the following OOB:

• Field Army Bernolak
  • Gen. Ferdinand Čatloš
    • Slovak 1st Infantry Division Janošík
    • Gen. Antonin Pulanich
  • Slovak 2nd Infantry Division Škultéty
    • Col. Ivan Imro, later Gen. Alexandr Čunderlik
  • Slovak 20th Infantry Division Razus
    • Gen. Augustin Malár
  • Fast Troops Group Kalinčiak
    • Col. Ivan Imru

In fact the divisions were improvised and were much smaller than pre-war Czechoslovak divisions. In fact they resembled their defensive divisions rather than standard infantry divisions. In addition, Čatloš had some artillery, some smaller detachments, 79 fighters and 3 (three) bombers. Altogether, the Slovak troops numbered 51,306 men at arms. //Halibutt 20:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of foreign words

It is poor style to use foreign words and phrases as ordinary words, when ordinary English words can be used instead. Foreign words and phrases should be used sparingly, and only for a good reason, to communicate a point that cannot be communicated in a simpler way. For example, certain foreign words have no good translation into English. Foreign words that do have an English equivalent, however generally should not be used. Omit foreign words unless absolutely necessary to convey intended meaning. Drogo Underburrow 15:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Any examples? //Halibutt 16:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This has changed in English due to greater sophistication on the part of the average reader, especially military history readers. See the book NO HOLDING BACK by Brian Reid, who makes excellent use of German military ranks, Polish military ranks, and unit designations in the original Polish and German as well. I think the use of "foreign" words adds respectability and does convey greater meaning - especially when discussing unit designations and rank designations, as often there are no direct translations into English. Having said that, some examples would be nice.Michael Dorosh 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that interlinking on Wikipedia allows the reader to call up near-instant definitions of terms he may not be familiar with. We shouldn't introduce crippling limitations just to accommodate the lowest common denominator. I'm all for foreign words, be they German, Polish, or Russian. Albrecht 19:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition to what's been written above, we (I mean our small Polish club here) generally tend to use English wherever possible, and especially so in warfare-related articles. Hence the names of units are almost always translated (Polish 1st Legions' Infantry Division). Even in cases where there's no exact equivalent (generał brygady), the link usually looks something like [[generał brygady|gen.bryg.]] or [[Generał brygady|Brig.Gen.]]. So yes, a set of examples would be nice. //Halibutt 21:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you don't agree with me when I recommend it, here's a link to a brief statement saying the same thing: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Use other languages sparingly. They say use foreign language sparingly. I submit that if you are using foreign language words when English ones are availible, you are not using them sparingly. My text is taken from general writing guides on how to write well. Drogo Underburrow 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What you have obviously failed to grasp is that military history is another ball game and serious historians (I cite Reid, above) are tending to make use of foreign terminology in order to increase understanding. The link you provide isn't from a military history perspective but from a generalist perspective, nicht wahr? :-) For example, translate Abteilung into a single word in English. I could mean "battalion" of 800 men or "detachment" of 20. I defy you to translate Hauptfeldwebel into English and convey the proper meaning to both a British and an American reader. Even Generalmajor does not translate into English since a Generalmajor of the German Army and a Major General in the US or Commonwealth had different responsibilities. It gets worse with Gefreiter - see my comments in the article on that page.Michael Dorosh 03:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How about getting back to some specific examples from this article? //Halibutt 11:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I edited out an example. Now the reader doesn't have to take the link in order to understand the sentence. -- Drogo Underburrow 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that one I agree with - it would be helpful if you posted your example here - Drogo edited out the Polish form of "central industrial area". I agree that no greater meaning is implied by the Polish form. Also, I agree with your de-linking of common words in English also - ie "public transport". They were not essential to understanding the article. Good work.Michael Dorosh 15:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Bah, at last I understand what was Drogo drinking to, as we say here in Poland. Indeed, posting the examples here would make our life much easier. //Halibutt 16:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my comment above, I, also, would agree that foreign terms used gratuitously (i.e. providing no additional explanatory or stylistic advantage) ought to be reviewed, as per Wiki guidelines. Otherwise, my view follows Michael Dorosh's when it comes to foreign military terms. Albrecht 16:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Heer or Wehrmacht?

Heer, which redirects to German Army, notes that the Former names of past German military forces are: the Wehrmacht ("Defence Force"). Our current version in the 'Opposing forces#Germany' section uses both Heer (Army) and Wehrmacht (Armed Forces). I am confused - can someone elaborate on the distinction and correct use (and preferably do it not only here but in both mentioned articles)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wehrmacht is the Armed Forces - Heer, Kriegsmarine, and Luftwaffe. Heer is the Army. Off to look. Michael Dorosh 20:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The linked article is ok - it reads a bit awkward, but is correct in saying that the Heer has been a part of the Wehrmacht, Bundeswehr and Reichswehr, all terms for the Armed Forces as a whole. May need a bit of a massage.Michael Dorosh 20:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Tnx for the explanation. Especially in light of our discussion above, I think it would be a good idea to make a note of this in the articles that use those terms.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence

"About 65,000 Polish troops were killed and 680,000 were captured by the Germans (420,000) or (240,000) by the Soviets."

what is meant by that? it is written to imply that 65000 Polish troops were killed not in action but by other methods e.g. mass murder, which is totally wrong and irresponsible writing on behalf of the author. also it took me about 15 minutes to figure out what the numbers meant,

also later on in same paragraph, "over ~30%" makes absolutely no sense.

I also removed "and before the Soviet Union and the United States allied with each other against Hitler and Japan, thus making the combined European and Pacific conflicts truly a "world war"." becasue Britain owned lands in the Pacific and elsewhere, for instance see the Japanese attack upon Hongkong. some state WWII actually started in 1937 with China and Japan fighting as well. Not to mention it wasnt just the US and USSR allying, it was what became the UN, dont make it seem they were only important fighters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadger (talk • contribs)

Regarding this edit, what is your reasoning behind the following changes you do not mention above:

• removal of "even with its territories occupied"
• removal of "Polish campaign was important as the first step in Hitler's drive for "living space" (Lebensraum) for Germans in Eastern Europe (Generalplan Ost)"
• removal of "lacking modern fighters"

I do agree with your two changes explained above, and also support the citations requests.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

1. removal of "Polish campaign was important as the first step in Hitler's drive for "living space" (Lebensraum) for Germans in Eastern Europe.

"Lebenstraum" is a generalized motivation that could be used to smear any irrendentist nation that appears "expansionist". No copies of GPO exist today and no source cites that it was even prepared until 1941. You can't state that an offensive operation was part of a plan when it was carried out before the plan was even formulized.--Hohns3 19:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry this the mainstream historic view. You can find it in several historic books and scholary sources as well as Hitler's statements. Expulsions of Poles from German occupied territory in GG started well before 1941. --Molobo 21:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but that certainly doesn't mean the expulsion of Poles was part of some plan if these areas were occupied and cleansed before the plan was formulated or even put into effect. Mainstream historians offer a variety of views, but to go into detail about that here is inappropriate. What has happened is you have made a sweeping generalization that could probably be defended, but as this topic is hardly relevant to the article, lets stick to the September campaign.

Also, a number of details are misleading in this article. In addition to numerous instances of Polish POVing, this article has several grammatical issues, instances of off-topic irrelevance and so on. I will try to be of use and cut down on all of these, hopefully reducing the article size a little.--Hohns3 00:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but the goal of German agression was settlement of Polish territory and elimination of Polis national group. I see no reason for removing this information. Mainstream historians offer a variety of views, but to go into detail about that here is inappropriate Which we don't go into. I am well aware of the discussion and variety of views, regarding if German state wanted to murder all Poles or leave some slaves for the future use. Again we don't go into that in this article. --Molobo 11:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

With an ignorant set of statements like that, Molobo, I highly doubt you have familiarized yourself with anything that contradicts your personal bias...retrospective fatalist propaganda...In actuality, it was the Poles who allowed themselves to be put into that position, lobbying for the borders that they currently enjoy and refusing to negotiate an alternative. All this took place before German GPO/Lebenstraum plans or even before the decision to draft Fall Weiss. I highly suggest that you stop searching sites that end with .pl for your information and check out the British Blue Book (British perspective) or the German Weissbuch (German Perspective) for information on the proceedings with Poland. The point remains, however, that you cannot say "this is step one towards fulfilling GPO's Lebenstraum" when GPO/Lebenstraum was not formulated into an abject policy until many years later.--Hohns3 02:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Molobo, if you are so certain, provide us with an authoritative historian's writings where in it he/she states something along the lines of: "GPO was initiated in the Polish September Campaign; two years before it was even formulized or written down."

it was the Poles who allowed themselves to be put into that position, lobbying for the borders that they currently enjoy and refusing to negotiate an alternative By regaining territory Prussia took from Poland in Partitions and declining Hitler's offer to annex Lithuania ? --Molobo 11:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC) --Jadger 02:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC) While GPO might have been formulated as a plan later the idea of settling Poland with Germans in the name of Lebensraum was made before. --Molobo 11:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The next person to type "Lebenstraum" when they mean to say "Lebensraum" deserves to be banned. :mad:Michael Dorosh 04:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained Revert

I thought it was extremely kind of Molobo to eliminate all of my edits without a single explanation. Thanks.--Hohns3 05:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Your POV has been deconstructed on other page where you had been demonstrated enough evidence to true intentions of Hitler. I see no reason why information about Hitler's motives should be deleted. --Molobo 09:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Gun, tank and aircraft figures on the right side are only German?

I belive that the gun, tank and aircraft figures on the right side of the battlebox are only German. If this is so, then it should be mentioned.

Kurt.

Suggestions

• The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.

• This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).

• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.

• Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.

• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
• You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
• Thanks, Andy _t 21:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg and the Myths section

I was wanting some input on wether or not we should delete the part "Poland offered little resistance and surrendered quickly:..."

I believe we should delete or change it a bit, as it is deceptively written. the two cannot be compared, of course the Polish campaign lasted comparatively longer because the tactics used were quite different, the blitzkrieg and Von Manstein Plan were used in France and the Low Countries, it is like comparing apples to oranges. So what that they were closer to numerical parity with the Germans, as it has been written thousands of times before, their numbers (particularly in armour) were not concentrated and so could not stop the concentrated German panzer attacks during the blitzkrieg.

--Jadger 01:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That part of the article states that it is a myth...that's the entire point of the section. ?? Michael Dorosh 02:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

that was not my point. My point was that it says that it says "hey, the Poles were not so easily conquered, just look at how fast a bigger and more powerful nation (France) was conquered". but there is a definite difference in the strategy, battlefields, tactics etc. By the same measure one could say that Poland was conquered rather quickly, as Germany invaded USSR with much greater strength but never was able to conquer them in four years of campaigning. obviously one cannot make a comparison, and the same is with the French Campaign.

--Jadger 02:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you're looking at, but the "Blitzkrieg myths" section doesn't even discuss France.Michael Dorosh 02:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

EDIT - oh THIS -

Poland offered little resistance and surrendered quickly: It should be noted that the September Campaign lasted only about one week less than the Battle of France in 1940, even though the Anglo-French allied forces were much closer to parity with the Germans in numerical strength and equipment[9]. Poland also never officially surrendered to the Germans.

Yes, quite...if you want to reword it, you should feel free. In fact, the words you just used would be perfect.Michael Dorosh 02:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking it should be deleted though, as it really has no relevance. because as I said, one cannot compare the two campaigns, so if one puts, "the polish campaign was not that short, as the battle of france was only ~2 weeks longer... note however that in the battle of France new tactics were used by the Germans and the Allied armoured forces were not concentrated....." there is really no point to keep it in the article is there?

--Jadger 02:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is indeed a widely held belief, among casual observers anyway, at least in North America, that the Poles did surrender easily, so countering that with the description you just gave - ie apples and oranges - would be in order. I'm not bothered either way though, if it stays or goes. Other opinions are welcome - in no one objects, then jettison it, but I can see a use for it.Michael Dorosh 03:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A note on difficulty of comparison might indeed be in place. On the other hand what Jadger wrote is not entirely true, as the Polish armoured forces were not concentrated either - and they fought in a much more difficult strategic situation (compare numerical parity and a narrow front to the situation of Poland with huge German superiority and the fronts overstretched to 1,5 thousand of kilometres, from East Prussia to Slovakia. //Halibutt 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No matter how you state it though, you are still minimalizing one campaign over another. Polish armoured forces were not concentrated, but the Germans did not use the same "blitzkrieg" tactic as they did in the low countries, and panzers were often used in support of infantry in Poland, the old style of warfare, not these new tactics. if we remove the comparison between the two campaigns all these problems would be solved I think. Since the point is to show that Poland did put up more resistance, why dont we change the comparison of timeframe to a comparison of number of German casualties in the two campaigns, or compare it to the Balkan campaign where Germany invaded Yugoslavia and Greece etc, which would make more sense as those nations were of more the same size.

--Jadger 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any point there is to prove and I'm perfectly fine with the comparison we have now. Comparison with Yugoslavia would on the other hand be misleading, as they simply capitulated quite soon, and even the fights that took place there were of a completely different nature, mostly due to mountainous terrain. //Halibutt 05:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

For Piotrus

I think the section is very clear and detailed enough as is. The article is an appropriate length, but the prelude section was becoming a bit cantankerous and yes, repetitive. All of us working on that section were repetitively trying to cut it down. It included unneccesary remarks about British policy that take the focus away from Poland and Germany, but in the present article I think it can be agreed that Britain's role is clearly explained. Also, as too many details would take away the focus, not enough of them would mean one point of view. The focus is not British policy. The additional objective of eliminating redundancy within the article was important, and many of the things I cut out were repeated or simply rephrased when I cut them out. In any case, I was happy with the result and hardly noticed the edits that were omitted. Their material carried over. Feel the same? Cheers. --Hohns3 12:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper, and lenght is of more importance for us. If you feel the article is getting to long, create subarticles and move excess information there, do not delete it. Deletion of referenced information is not a good way to increase our knowledge. I will not oppose removal of that info once a subarticle contains it, but before that I see no groudns for deletion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  15:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not an adequate reply for justifying yet another revert of yours. The redundancy is obvious, the POV and out of context statement about the population of Poland is just as obvious. It was not of Germany's original intention to demand the corridor, and quoting figures about the German population in all of Poland - i.e. regions that the Poles undisputably owned (or the Russian Empire, until as of late "owned") serves its purpose. That would be like saying, although the Sudetenland was overwhelmingly German, "the Germans only made up xx% of Czechoslovakia." Nevertheless, if you actually read the two versions, which I doubt, you would find that the same information exists in each. The second flows much better. I am not at all pleased with the amount of thought you actually devoted to the issue after I made the effort to spell specific examples out. Each topic has its subarticle with more information: Free State of Danzig, Polish Corridor, etc. some of the same phrases are even repeated and that is sloppy. Please also stop deleting my referencing link. They demanded a superstructure connecting E.P. and Germany. period. --Hohns3 02:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The redundancy is not obvious to me. As you are the party who wants to delete that information, I challenge you to show me that every fact is either mentioned in the article or in an easily accessible subarticle, same with the references.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

au contraire, Piotr! I stated that I did not delete any information, only condensed it. It lies in your hands to point out what is explicitly different in the article, besides its size, because I already said "nothing is different" in my last post (see above). If you had read both versions as I proposed in that last post, you would see this. You also would see a GLARING MISPERFECTION in the version you keep changing to - you couldn't have missed it even if you were blind. the same sentence appears twice in the same exact phrasing, with the exact same links. Again, I repeat: the same idea, what Hitler offered and what Poland agreed to accept (and wouldn't and why) are in both articles, and both articles show how this changed over time. the article you keep reverting to does not have chronological order either, which is one of the reasons I reordered it and changed the sentences linking the same ideas. Lo and behold, this made it shorter. Additionally, YOU HAVE DELETED MY ALTERATION THAT PERTAINED TO THE *FACT REQUEST* FOR THE FOURTH OF FIFTH TIME. Please read the article and tell me what is different. If not, I see no reason for me not to revert.--Hohns3 05:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I aplogize for removing the reference in all the confusion. But when I look at this edit I see that you are removing for paragaphs, while not adding much but that other reference. Are you saying that you have incorporated the info from those three paras into text before and now they are redundant? If so, can you show me those past edits of yours?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is all there, trust me.--Hohns3 07:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I trust you, but I still fail to see where did you condense the four paras you repeatedly delete. Is "40x20px" (the only positive change) some sort of a code that, when decrypted, magically becomes four paragraphs of text? //Halibutt 15:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It took me a second to figure out what you were talking about, but now I get it. I just went through the article as it was and as it is now. All details are present, and now it is repeating thanks to your revert. I'd say you're being childish about this but...well, I'm not sure what to say or why you insist on a repetitive and erroreous version.--Hohns3 21:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would have helped if you had clearly shown there is no difference. Indeed, I have reread the version you remove and most of the information is already in the article. While some information is removed ("carrot and stick" British policy, 2.3% figure for German minority in Poland), it seems relatively minor and unreferenced, so unless there are some further comments I am going to widthdraw my criticism of your removal, nonetheless for the future please by more specific in both edit summaries and talk to avoid such misunderstandings.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)